free will is an illusion
Debate Rounds (5)
Bop will be upon me to provide proof.
Lets try an example....
A teacher asks your class "Who likes milk?"
Your choices are a) raise your hand or b) dnt raise your hand.
Factors affecting your choice
1) do you like milk? (Preferance)
2) are you honest? (Personalty)
3) are you shy or afraid to draw attention to yourself? (Personality)
4) what happened last time you raised your hand? (Past experience)
If you were in that class now, would you raise your hand?
The preference of liking milk is indeed involuntary, so is one's personality. Nonetheless, the actual decision mad eis made by one's free will as without it, the person would do neither a nor b.
This may be unusual, but lets try a little experiment.
Pick something you can do.
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA forfeited this round.
Good/bad: some believe we are fundimentally good. Some believe the opposite. Its irrelevant for this argument as its fundinental and therefore not a choice. At any given moment we cant be both good and bad. If you are prone to doing good you will always do good. In the case of two choices both being good we can attach a value to each option. Giving R2 to a poor person is good. Giving R10 is gooder...(forgive my misuse of the english language but I dnt want to cause confusion between better benefit/detriment and better good/evil) so on the vector good/evil, R2 might be value +1 and R10 might be +5. Kicking the poor person would be -7 and a choice with no moral factor would be 0. if the choices are both evil we would choose the lowest evil vector. These values may change in time, be it a year, a month or even a few seconds but only an external event can alter the values. But the point is that every choice has a moral value and we will always choose the highest. Well you may argue that you sometimes choose bad....we'll get to that.
I apologise if I seem to be plodding along but not everyone grasps concepts easily so I'm going as slow as I can. If I'm going to fast please feel free to ask for explanations in comments. But after the debate pls.
As in Good/bad we will always choose a beneficial choice over a detrimental one. Unless one is suicidal, in which case the opposite would apply. Same rules apply. One cant be suicidal and want to live. So at any one moment you can only be one. In the case of 2 options both being beneficial we will choose the most beneficial. In the case of 2 detrimental choices we choose the least detrimental. Again each choice has a set value at any given moment and if both choices have the same value the they cancel each other out. Nb. Its important to note the + and - sign. Only 2 +4's cancel each other out. In this case choice can't be decided by this vector. Again you say you sometimes make detrimental choices.....be patient a little longer. We nearly there.
Unlike Good/Evil, like/dislike is variable. Its learnt by past experience and open to change. Mood, weather, bodily needs are a few examples of factors which affect like/dislike. But we have just as much control over our mood as we do over the weather at any given moment. If we sad we can't choose to be happy. We can take action to change our mood but this is only to achieve a better result which we learnt by past experiences. So even the choice to change our mood is decided by past experience. As above we can give each choice a value depending on how much we like or dislike something. + being like and - being dislike with 0 being things we niether like or dislike and also things we have no experience here. Its important to note that personality plays a role in new experiences. Ie someone open to trying new things is more likely to try new things. Well that opens the debate to "isn't personality choice" ?
Lets consider that. Where does personality come from? A soul?.... do you get to choose your soul?
genetic???? Lol if only we COULD choose our parents :-)))
Some claim personality arrises from past experiences.....well you can't change those either.
If I'm missing an option please enlighten me
But its irrelevant. At any given moment you can only have one personality. Change neccesitates action. Something beyond our control causes the change. Be it circumstances or hormonal its not our choice.
Conflict arrises when a choice offers + on one vector but - on another. For instance smoking feels nice but its unhealthy and bad. Ie good/evil -5 like/dislike +7 benefit/detriment -3. These values may vary from person to person and even personally from time to time, depending on mood etc. But at any given moment these values are set. Its at this point that we become aware of our thought process as calculating variables requires higher brain function. So we look at the sum total of each choice. -5+7-3=-1. Not smoking would be +1. Note that these are my values. Feel free to create your own calculations with your own values. So we may do something with a negative moral value, but only if the benifit and like value outwiegh it. We will not by itself choose a negative option, unless we are faced with 2 negative options and no other alternative. In this case we would choose the lesser of two evils. Pun intended.
I think we need a rest here, its a lot to take in.
It is definitely clear that Pro and I have different definitions of free will here. I am sorry to Pro for this misunderstanding as I feel maybe it's my fault.
Pro believes that free will means that absolutely nothing influences one's decisions and that every single aspect of any given scenario is within one's conscious control. If this is free will then it basically is a debate of whether we are all god or not and yes as an atheist I believe god is definitely an illusion. On the other hand, I prefer the looser interpretation of free will, which is actually the one most go by; the capacity to choose between more than one option with conscious effort to reach the decision.
In other words, for me this debate boils down to what free will really is.
To me it's accepting that while things influence decisions, decisions are undeniably made by that individual and they deserve full blame for the consequences.
We throw rapists into prison because we assume they chose to rape. If there is no free will, no one should go to prison and you should just laugh along as some guy rapes your mother, girlfriend, daughter or sister and cheer as someone murders all those you love. They can't help it, after all, so why punish them? WRONG! They chose to do it and that filthy mongrel must scream in agony as they are buttf***d nightly in a prison shower. That is the beauty of this world. if they really did bad they will even scram beneath the power of electricity.
This world is not a nice place. Everyone's out for themselves. We can only punish those who use their free will to look out for themselves too much in a way we deem 'evil'.
This must be the truth. There is no illusion of it, only a psychopath would want to get out of prison by having 'diminished responsibility' due to insanity which is the only way in which someone could be considered to have less free will than most.
Example.... we will always do good if no other vector affects it. ref last round for explanation of vectors. Even a criminal will not commit a crime unless it either benefits him or he likes it. likewise we will not do something we don't like unless its the right thing to do (good) or it benefits us. For example diets.
The determining factor is priority. At any given moment we can only have one priority. Therefore at any given moment we can only have 1 action. As time is just a continuous moment after moment there is no moment we actually have choice.
Thanks con for a interesting debate.
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.